The Complainant is the German company rami.io GmbH, providing event ticketing services, using the domain \"pretix.eu\" and other auxiliary services through other sub-domains, among which <marketplace.pretix.eu>, which is used to provide a repository with plugins that can be used with the PRETIX software.<\/p>\n
The CEO and owner of the Complainant is the owner of the trademark PRETIX, EU registration No. 017878059, registered on 4 July 2018 in relation to goods and services in classes 9, 41 and 42.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is a French individual. The disputed domain name was registered on 24 March 2024. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected to the Complainant’s main website at www.pretix.eu<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name<\/p>",
"discussion_and_findings": " According to Article 4 (4) of the Regulation (EU) 2019\/ 517 (hereinafter the \"Regulation\") <\/span>and Paragraph B 11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, the Complainant bears the burden of proving the following:<\/p>\n The Complaint is exceptionally brief but, in the Panel's opinion, still meets the minimum requirements for the Panel to evaluate the Regulation requirements without breaching the Panel's duty to comply with the principles of good faith, fairness, due diligence and impartiality set forth by Paragraph B (5)(a) and (b) of the ADR Rules.<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Identity or confusingly similarity <\/span><\/p>\n With respect to the first requirement under Article 4 (4) of the Regulation, namely the identity or confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with a name in respect of which the Complainant has a right, the Complainant has based its Complainant on the trademark PRETIX, European registration No. 017878059, registered some years before the date of registration of the disputed domain name. However, the owner of this trademark is not the Complainant. Therefore, before examining whether there is identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the earlier mark on which the Complaint is based, it is necessary to evaluate whether the Complainant has standing to file this ADR Complaint. The Complainant has omitted to indicate and to provide evidence of its rights on the cited mark. In particular, the Complainant has not provided the Panel with a copy of a license agreement, or of any other written authorization from the trademark owner to make use of the cited mark and to file this ADR Complaint. However, the Complainant has indicated that the trademark owner is the Complainant's CEO and owner, albeit without providing supporting evidence. Pursuant to Paragraph B 7(a) of the ADR Rules the Panel is not obliged but is permitted at its sole discretion, to conduct its own investigations on the circumstances of the case. Taking into consideration the fact that the Complainant is a small entity and is self-represented, the Panel has decided to avail itself of the powers granted in Paragraph B 7(a) of the ADR Rules. Accordingly, the Panel has made some limited searches on the Complainant's website at \"www.rami.io\"<\/a> and has ascertained that the owner of the PRETIX mark is the founder and Managing Director of the Complainant. In light of the above the Panel finds that it is likely that the owner of the PRETIX mark granted the the Complainamt with the right to use the PRETIX mark and to file this ADR Complaint. <\/p>\n In light of the above, it is now necessary to evaluate whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the PRETIX mark. According to Paragraph B 11(10) A of the ADR Rules, the Complaint shall \"describe why the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the name or names in respect of which a right or rights are recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law\". The Complainant's reasoning on this point is quite limited. The Complainant merely states that the disputed domain name is a \"typosquatting\". Despite the Complainant's explanation on why the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the PRETIX mark is limited to a single word, the Panel considers it sufficient to support a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PRETIX mark. Typosquatting is an obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark. Examples of such typos include the substitution of similar-appearing characters, such as, for instance, upper vs. lower-case letters, like in the case at issue, where the upper-case letter \"i\" of the PRETIX mark has been replaced by the lower-case letter \"l\" in the disputed domain name. As a result, the PRETIX mark is very well recognizable within the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has discharged its burden of proof that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a name in which the Complainant has rights. <\/span><\/p>\n 2. The Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests \/ The Respondent's bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name<\/span><\/p>\n (a) Lack of rights or legitimate interests<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant has not discussed the requirements of Article 4.4 (a) and (b) separately and has focused, in particular on the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name. The explanation provided by the Complainant is often very technical and the evidence goes beyond the Panel's technical knowledge. It is important for the Complainant to understand, that the ADR proceeding is a legal proceeding and that, consequently, the Panel's background, is a legal background. To facilitate the Panel, the evidence provided should be of a legal nature and should be self-explanatory. Moreover, <\/span>the ADR is of an expedited nature and the Panel's duties of impartiality and independence require the Panel to use its powers under Paragraph B 7(a) of the ADR Rules only exceptionally. Conclusory statements unsupported by evidence are normally insufficient to prove a party’s case, although panels have been prepared to draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case e.g., where a particular conclusion is prima facie obvious, where an explanation by the respondent is called for but is not forthcoming, or where no other plausible conclusion is apparent. <\/p>\n Bearing in mind the above, the Panel shall now evaluate the Complainant's arguments and evidence in support of: (i) the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests and\/or (ii) the Respondent's bad faith in the registration or use of the disputed domain name. In order to ensure an equal treatment of the parties involved in this ADR proceeding, the Panel will not conduct additional personal investigations pursuant to Paragraph B 7(a) of the ADR Rules. The <\/span>Panel has already issued a non-standard communication asking the Complainant to clarify some of its technical arguments and provide supporting evidence, and the Complainant replied to the Panelist's communication. On the other hand, the Respondent had the opportunity to reply to the Complainant's further contentions but has decided not to do so. <\/p>\n The Complainant maintains that at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected to the Complainant's website at \"www.pretix.com\" and operated by means of proxying the contents of \"marketplace.pretix.eu\" on the fraudulent \"marketplace.pretlx.eu\". The Complainant further contends that it blocklisted the IP addresses of the offending shared hosting system, to eliminate the functioning of the phishing attack. As a result, the disputed domain name only returned a blank or error page. The Panel notes that the Complainant did not provide any evidence of the alleged Respondent's activity, or at least did not provide convincing and clear evidence to that effect for the Panel. The Complainant cites an email enclosed to the Complaint; however, the Panel could not retrieve this email on the case file. The email was also not attached to the Complainant's reply to the Panelist's non-standard communication of 28 May 2024.<\/p>\n A few days after filing its Complaint, before the Complaint was notified to the Respondent, the Complainant filed additional arguments and supporting evidence, by way of a non-standard communication. On that occasion, the Complainant stated that \"(...) on April, 1st 2024, the respondent chose to clone the enterity of marketplace.pretix.eu by means of downloading the website and its content using the tool wget, as our serverlogs reveal\". The Complainant further adds that \"[t]his is also witnessed by the fact that the now served marketplace.pretlx.eu shows a path of \"html\/static\/CACHE\/css\/\" - the untampered website is not using \"html\/\" as part of the local folder structure.\" The Complainant adds a screenshot of the source code of \"marketplace.pretix.eu\" to support its statement, including the \"html\/static\/CACHE\/css\/\" path cited by the Complainant. However, the Panel is not in the position to understand the meaning and the consequences of having this path included in the souce code of \"marketplace.pretix.eu\". However, the Panel notes that the source code of \"marketplace.pretix.eu\" includes the following references: \"<html><head><title> pretix Market place <title>\" and \"<head><body> (...) INDEX\" >pretix Marketplace<\/a\". These two references to the PRETIX mark on the source code of \"marketplace.pretix.eu\" suggest to the Panel the possibility that \"marketplace.pretix.eu\" led to a webpage referring to the Complainant's mark. As no screenshot of the relevant webpage was added to the Complaint, the Panel does not have a precise idea of what this page looked like. However, the Panel finds it is more likely than not that the Respondent's website contained unauthorised references to the Complainant's PRETIX mark.<\/p>\n The Complainant further stated that the \"Respondent then proceeded on April, 3rd 2024 to send a spear-phishing email to the marketplace operations team, mimicking an administrative message requesting review and approval of a new piece of content for the pretix Marketplace. This email was sent - as witnessed by the email-headers included by the web- and mailhoster - as an authenticated message by the person in control of pretlx.eu\". The Complainant provided a copy of this email, which has been sent from the address \"marketplace@pretix.eu<\/a>\" and addressed to the same address \"<\/span>marketplace@pretix.eu\";<\/a> the subject of the email is \"New product on pretix Marketplace\" and the contents states: \"<\/span>Please review http:\/\/marketplace.pretlx.eu\/admin\/core\/product\/122\/change\/\".<\/a><\/span> Unfortunately, the Complainant did not provide a screenshot of the webpage at http:\/\/marketplace.pretlx.eu\/admin\/core\/product\/122\/change\/<\/a> <\/span>and the Panel's attempt led to an error (\"not found\") page. Although the Panel cannot see the \"email-headers included by the web and mailhoster\" and cannot confirm that the email was \"authenticated by the person in control of pretlx.eu\" as mentioned by the Complainant, the Panel can <\/span>infer that the disputed domain name was used to send a phishing email to the Complainant from a fake email address identical to one of the Complainant's email addresses. The scope of this email is unknown but is most probably aimed at achieving some unlawful effect.<\/span><\/p>\n A confirmation of the illegitimate behaviour of the Respondent comes from the Respondent itself and in particular from the Respondent's email of 17 April 2024 addressed to the Czech Arbitration Court one day after the notification of the Complaint to the Respondent. Firstly, the Panel notes that this email is sent from the address \"pretlx@microsoft-mailing.biz.ua\". Therefore, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name as part of an email address. Moreover, the Respondent affirms that the pending \"dispute has already been resolved with the Namecheap registrar and that, after analysis, all this is linked to a Wordpress extension\". Accordingly, the Respondent has \"immediately stopped it, and especially cleaned the vulnerable codes\". In the Panel's view, the Respondent's reply entails its recognition that the disputed domain name was used improperly. Although the Respondent explains that the improper use of the disputed domain name is not the result of the Respondent's activity, but is \"linked to a Wordpress extension\" (of which the Complainant denies the existence, and the Respondent fails to provide evidence), the Panel notes that the Respondent cannot disclaim responsability for the illegitimate use of the disputed domain name simply because it was allegedly linked to a Wordpress extension. The Respondent is fully responsible for any use of the disputed domain name, including of its malfunctioning due to a third party's activity. <\/span><\/p>\n The additional arguments provided by the Complainant in reply to the Panelist's solicitation are way too technical and miss supporting evidence. Therefore, the Panel does not feel necessary to take them into consideration.<\/span><\/p>\n In view of the above, to assess this case, the Panel shall take into consideration the following circumstances:<\/span><\/p>\n\n